Dne, 12. 11. 2014 16:22:00 je Martin Read napisal(a):
On 12/11/14 14:20, Klistvud wrote:
As a side note: once systemd is put in place, such problem-less and
swift migration between desktop environments is just one of the many
"Good Things Linux" going down the drain...
Eh? I'm running XFCE *ju
On 12/11/14 14:20, Klistvud wrote:
As a side note: once systemd is put in place, such problem-less and
swift migration between desktop environments is just one of the many
"Good Things Linux" going down the drain...
Eh? I'm running XFCE *just fine* on a jessie box with systemd as init,
and if
Dne, 02. 11. 2014 11:44:47 je Jyri J. Virkki napisal(a):
I imagine, hopefully, that such a question is clearly ludicrous and
obviously completely misses the point? I don't use Windows due to it
having this or that bug! I don't use it because everything about it is
dissonant with how my mind works
On Sat, 11/8/14, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:16:45 -0500, golinux wrote:
On Tue, 10/28/14, lee wrote:
Subject: Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014,
2:54
PM
I am considering Funtoo.
I would
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:16:45 -0500, golinux wrote:
> On Tue, 10/28/14, lee wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014, 2:54
> PM
>
>
>> I am considering Funtoo.
>>
Στις 05-11-2014 03:44, Jyri J. Virkki έγραψε:
... As long as debian continues to enable everyone
(systemd lovers and opponents) equally, everyone wins.
that's not going to happen, IMHO.
I don't think you are familiar with that email from systemd project
leader at LKML back at 2010 [1], do y
On 11/5/2014 1:57 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2014, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Not understanding this reference - so, you're saying you *can* perform
>> a clean install of Jessie using sysvinit for the init system, just
>> using a special command during the install process?
>
> Yes, FSVO "
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 11/5/2014 1:35 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It's not an RC bug because it's easy to overcome with a late command.
>
> Not understanding this reference - so, you're saying you *can* perform
> a clean install of Jessie using sysvinit for the init system, j
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 11/5/2014 1:35 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
It's not an RC bug because it's easy to overcome with a late command.
Not understanding this reference - so, you're saying you *can* perform a
clean install of Jessie using sysvinit for the init system, just using a
special command du
Don Armstrong wrote:
Quoting myself from
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20141021184619.gq28...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
with modifications.
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014, Tanstaafl wrote:
Personally I think the biggest issue with Jessie at present is the
inability to do a clean install with sysvinit
On 11/5/2014 1:35 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> It's not an RC bug because it's easy to overcome with a late command.
Not understanding this reference - so, you're saying you *can* perform a
clean install of Jessie using sysvinit for the init system, just using a
special command during the install p
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Sorry friend, like I said, I'm a new user.
>
> This is on the Debian devs.
>
> And if they choose NOT to do this, then ALL of the resulting (and
> continuing/ongoing) systemd noise is ON THEM.
>
> PERIOD.
If no one is willing to do the work, then the work
Sorry friend, like I said, I'm a new user.
This is on the Debian devs.
And if they choose NOT to do this, then ALL of the resulting (and
continuing/ongoing) systemd noise is ON THEM.
PERIOD.
Such a major change without classifying a bug like this as a SHOWSTOPPER
speaks volumes.
On 11/5/2014 1
Quoting myself from
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20141021184619.gq28...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
with modifications.
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Personally I think the biggest issue with Jessie at present is the
> inability to do a clean install with sysvinit rather than systemd
Le mercredi, 5 novembre 2014, 09.21:26 Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
> On 11/5/2014 2:37 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > Discussions about possible forks are off-topic on debian-user,
> > please re-read the list topic:
> > From https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/ :
> >> Community assistance and sup
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 22:00:12 -0500,
Miles Fidelman a écrit :
[...]
> - SUSE seems to be moving down the systemd path, but with less
> aggregation (e.g., systemd w/o journald)
I personally didn't checked, but I can bet money on it if you want,
that SLES 12 is doing _exactly_ what debian IS doin
Tanstaafl wrote:
An opinion from a very new debian user...
On 11/4/2014 5:09 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
http://debianfork.org/:
"If systemd will be substituting sysvinit in Debian, we will fork the
project and create a new distro. We hope this won't be necessary, but
we are well prepared f
On 11/5/2014 2:37 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 21.13:36 Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
>> Yes, but you seem to want to stifle any discussion of a possible fork.
>
> Discussions about possible forks are off-topic on debian-user, please
> re-read the list topic:
>
>>From h
An opinion from a very new debian user...
On 11/4/2014 5:09 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> http://debianfork.org/:
>
> "If systemd will be substituting sysvinit in Debian, we will fork the
> project and create a new distro. We hope this won't be necessary, but
> we are well prepared for it."
>
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 21.13:36 Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
Yes, but you seem to want to stifle any discussion of a possible fork.
Discussions about possible forks are off-topic on debian-user, please
re-read the list topic:
>From https://lists.debian.org/debian-use
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 05/11/14 14:00, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 05/11/14 12:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 17.13:05 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Personally, the more this drags on, the more I'm convinced
that those of us w
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 21.13:36 Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
> Yes, but you seem to want to stifle any discussion of a possible fork.
Discussions about possible forks are off-topic on debian-user, please
re-read the list topic:
>From https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/ :
> Community assistance
On 05/11/14 14:00, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 05/11/14 12:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 17.13:05 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> Personally, the more this drags on, the more I'm convinced
> that those of us who
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 05/11/14 12:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 17.13:05 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Personally, the more this drags on, the more I'm convinced that those
of us who deploy and manage servers would really benefit from a fork
tha
On 05/11/14 12:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 17.13:05 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
>>> Personally, the more this drags on, the more I'm convinced that those
>>> of us who deploy and manage servers would really benefit from a fork
>>> that retains
On 11/4/2014 6:08 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:26:40 -0500,
> Miles Fidelman a écrit :
>
>> Laurent Bigonville wrote:
>>> Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:57:20 -0500,
>>> Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
>>>
On 11/4/2014 4:41 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 2
Once upon a time Laurent Bigonville wrote:
>
> Using the threat of forking to make people change their mind or change
> a policy that has been decided by the project (the CTTE has been
> delegated by the project the power to take such decisions) is bad. If
The vote has barely started so nothing ha
Nate Bargmann wrote:
* On 2014 04 Nov 16:15 -0600, Miles Fidelman wrote:
And beyond that, the level of interest in a fork might, hopefully, provide
some useful feedback into the Debian decision making process. (And in turn,
the response to such feedback, or lack thereof, might further inform
in
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:26:40 -0500,
Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:57:20 -0500,
Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
On 11/4/2014 4:41 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:08:50 +0100,
Peter Nieman a écrit :
On 04/
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 17.13:05 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Personally, the more this drags on, the more I'm convinced that those
of us who deploy and manage servers would really benefit from a fork
that retains the "flavor" and philosophy of pre-systemd (and maybe
p
* On 2014 04 Nov 16:15 -0600, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> And beyond that, the level of interest in a fork might, hopefully, provide
> some useful feedback into the Debian decision making process. (And in turn,
> the response to such feedback, or lack thereof, might further inform
> interest in a fork
On 02/11/14 14:56, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Marty wrote:
>> On 11/01/2014 10:00 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> On 02/11/14 12:19, Frank McCormick wrote:
On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic pedantics.
>
>
> On 02/1
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:26:40 -0500,
Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:57:20 -0500,
> > Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
> >
> >> On 11/4/2014 4:41 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> >>> Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:08:50 +0100,
> >>> Peter Nieman a écrit :
> >>>
> >>
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 17.13:05 Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> Personally, the more this drags on, the more I'm convinced that those
> of us who deploy and manage servers would really benefit from a fork
> that retains the "flavor" and philosophy of pre-systemd (and maybe
> pre-udev) Debian.
Just.
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:57:20 -0500,
Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
On 11/4/2014 4:41 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:08:50 +0100,
Peter Nieman a écrit :
On 04/11/14 19:04, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Using the threat of forking to make people change t
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/4/2014 4:41 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:08:50 +0100,
Peter Nieman a écrit :
On 04/11/14 19:04, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Using the threat of forking to make people change their mind
I didn't threaten anybody.
do not send 100 mails to ML'
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:57:20 -0500,
Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
> On 11/4/2014 4:41 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:08:50 +0100,
> > Peter Nieman a écrit :
> >
> >> On 04/11/14 19:04, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> >>> Using the threat of forking to make people change their mi
On 11/4/2014 4:41 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:08:50 +0100,
> Peter Nieman a écrit :
>
>> On 04/11/14 19:04, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
>>> Using the threat of forking to make people change their mind
>>
>> I didn't threaten anybody.
>>
>>> do not send 100 mails to ML's
>
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:08:50 +0100,
Peter Nieman a écrit :
> On 04/11/14 19:04, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > Using the threat of forking to make people change their mind
>
> I didn't threaten anybody.
>
> > do not send 100 mails to ML's
>
> I didn't. I don't even know what "ML's" are.
That w
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
Jerry Stuckle:
But just the fact there are people who consider systemd to be
> problematic enough to consider forking Debian should not be ignored.
Denis Roio already has dyne:bolic.
*
http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/run-scripts-and
Jerry Stuckle:
But just the fact there are people who consider systemd to be
> problematic enough to consider forking Debian should not be ignored.
Denis Roio already has dyne:bolic.
*
http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/run-scripts-and-service-units-side-by-side.html
On 04/11/14 19:04, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Using the threat of forking to make people change their mind
I didn't threaten anybody.
do not send 100 mails to ML's
I didn't. I don't even know what "ML's" are.
Now, my impression is that some people advocating things like Gnome
and systemd h
lee wrote:
John Hasler writes:
do so and quit whining about how the DDs choose to expend their own time
and resources. They *are* interested in what users want and need.
Where does this interest show?
For that matter, where does any interest in upstream show either -
beyond vacuous stat
John Hasler writes:
> do so and quit whining about how the DDs choose to expend their own time
> and resources. They *are* interested in what users want and need.
Where does this interest show?
--
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us. Finally
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:22:32 +0100,
Peter Nieman a écrit :
> On 04/11/14 03:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > On 11/3/2014 8:36 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose it may be polemic to assert that forking debian and
> >> setting up a new community would be labor-intensive, fractious,
> >> divisiv
latin...@vcn.bc.ca writes:
> Remember that Debian is not of the actual DDs or DMs.
Debian is an organization of around 1000 DDs and DMs. If you are not
one of them you are not part of Debian. However, the OS published by
the Debian organization (also called Debian) is Free Software so you are
fr
On Tuesday 04 November 2014 14:22:32 Peter Nieman wrote:
> And to the people who have no problem with the way things are going
> right now I would say: there's a perfect OS for you already, and it's
> called Microsoft Windows 7.
And for you lot there is Linux From Scratch.
Lisi
The question is:
Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 01:29:52 +,
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a
écrit :
> Laurent Bigonville:
> > The systemd umbrella project is made of 10+ different executables
> > that have all a specific scope (systemd PID1 used to manage the
> > life cycles of the daemons, systemd-logind manage the user
On Tuesday 04 November 2014 14:22:32 Peter Nieman wrote:
> And to the people who have no problem with the way things are going
> right now I would say: there's a perfect OS for you already, and it's
> called Microsoft Windows 7.
And for you lot there is Linux From Scratch.
Lisi
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Peter Nieman wrote:
On 04/11/14 03:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/3/2014 8:36 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
I suppose it may be polemic to assert that forking debian and
setting up
a new community would be labor-intensive, fractious, divisive, and
general not a wise use of precious free/libre/open com
On 04/11/14 03:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/3/2014 8:36 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
I suppose it may be polemic to assert that forking debian and setting up
a new community would be labor-intensive, fractious, divisive, and
general not a wise use of precious free/libre/open community resources,
in s
On 11/3/2014 8:36 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> I suppose it may be polemic to assert that forking debian and setting up
> a new community would be labor-intensive, fractious, divisive, and
> general not a wise use of precious free/libre/open community resources,
> in short, "dumb".
>
But just the fact
Laurent Bigonville:
The systemd umbrella project is made of 10+ different executables
> that have all a specific scope (systemd PID1 used to manage the life
> cycles of the daemons, systemd-logind manage the user sessions,
> systemd-journald a logging system,...) and that are all
> communicatin
2014/11/04 0:54 "Peter Nieman" :
>
> On 03/11/14 01:18, Joel Rees wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Peter Nieman
wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/11/14 16:45, Marty wrote:
http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
It should be required reading for any participant
On Du, 02 nov 14, 10:45:11, Marty wrote:
>
> http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
>
> It should be required reading for any participant in a systemd thread.
I agree.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and de
On 03/11/14 01:18, Joel Rees wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Peter Nieman wrote:
On 02/11/14 16:45, Marty wrote:
http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
It should be required reading for any participant in a systemd thread.
Required reading because of what? In order to
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Peter Nieman wrote:
> On 02/11/14 16:45, Marty wrote:
>>
>> http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
>>
>> It should be required reading for any participant in a systemd thread.
>
>
> Required reading because of what? In order to learn what an arrogant a
The Wanderer writes:
> On 11/01/2014 at 10:20 PM, lee wrote:
>
>> Steve McIntyre writes:
>>
>>> Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
Right. This sounds more and more like "we're going to rewrite
the rules, and if you don't like it, we're taking our ball and
going home."
>>>
>>> Various peop
On 11/02/2014 12:46 PM, Peter Nieman wrote:
On 02/11/14 16:45, Marty wrote:
http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
It should be required reading for any participant in a systemd thread.
Required reading because of what? In order to learn what an arrogant and
insulting pamphlet l
On 02/11/14 16:45, Marty wrote:
http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
It should be required reading for any participant in a systemd thread.
Required reading because of what? In order to learn what an arrogant and
insulting pamphlet looks like? I doubt that using the word "dumb
On 2014-11-02, lee wrote:
>
> Some people still have common sense and/or don't go along with
> everything the car manufacturers and sales people are trying to sell
> them. If the reception of what they make or try to sell frustrates the
> manufacturers or sales people, perhaps they'd be happier t
On 11/02/2014 05:17 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
I don't think we have universal agreement that systemd
violates the (rather nebulous)
(Well, engineering principles do tend to _appear_ nebulous, I suppose.)
To a lot of "engineers" as well. :(
On 11/02/2014 11:44 AM, Jyri J. Virkki wrote:
> Once upon a time Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> I'm asking why people keep insisting that systemd is bad
>> *because it's not the UNIX way*.
> Looking at the big picture: Why are any of us here, using Linux in
> general and debian specifically? There is n
Once upon a time Scott Ferguson wrote:
>
> I'm asking why people keep insisting that systemd is bad
> *because it's not the UNIX way*.
Looking at the big picture: Why are any of us here, using Linux in
general and debian specifically? There is no shortage of major
projects and industries working
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> I don't think we have universal agreement that systemd
> violates the (rather nebulous)
(Well, engineering principles do tend to _appear_ nebulous, I suppose.)
> UNIX philosophy,
True. Kind of like there was a time when Newton's descript
On Sb, 01 nov 14, 19:40:15, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> I mean that Linus has been very vocal, of late, about not allowing code by
> Kay Sievers, and several others, anywhere near the kernel.
Good thing then that Kay Sievers is not submitting the code.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.o
I don't think we have universal agreement that systemd
violates the (rather nebulous) UNIX philosophy, at
least any more egregiously than the kernel, GNU, or
many other key components of Debian. Nobody can rule
with any particular authority on the matter, and one
person's opinion is not worth more
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:57 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 11/01/2014 at 10:20 PM, lee wrote:
>
>> Steve McIntyre writes:
>>
>>> Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
Right. This sounds more and more like "we're going to rewrite
the rules, and if you don't like it, we're taking our ball and
goin
Marty wrote:
On 11/01/2014 10:00 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 02/11/14 12:19, Frank McCormick wrote:
On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic pedantics.
On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Second, we're not talking about vag
On 02/11/14 13:14, Frank McCormick wrote:
> On 11/01/2014 10:00 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 02/11/14 12:19, Frank McCormick wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic pedantics.
On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fid
On 02/11/14 13:12, Marty wrote:
> On 11/01/2014 10:00 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 02/11/14 12:19, Frank McCormick wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic
pedantics.
On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fidelm
On 11/01/2014 at 10:20 PM, lee wrote:
> Steve McIntyre writes:
>
>> Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Right. This sounds more and more like "we're going to rewrite
>>> the rules, and if you don't like it, we're taking our ball and
>>> going home."
>>
>> Various people have tried to explain how a bina
Steve McIntyre writes:
> Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>Martin Read wrote:
>>
>>Right. This sounds more and more like "we're going to rewrite the
>>rules, and if you don't like it, we're taking our ball and going home."
>
> Various people have tried to explain how a binary distribution like
> Debian w
On 11/01/2014 10:00 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 02/11/14 12:19, Frank McCormick wrote:
On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic pedantics.
On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" -
On 11/01/2014 10:00 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 02/11/14 12:19, Frank McCormick wrote:
On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic pedantics.
On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" -
On 02/11/14 12:19, Frank McCormick wrote:
> On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic pedantics.
>>
>>
>> On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" - we're talking
about a
On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic pedantics.
On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" - we're talking about a
>well developed philosophy of designing things that dates back to
For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic pedantics.
On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" - we're talking about a
> well developed philosophy of designing things that dates back to Ken
> Thompson, et. al (c.f., "The UNIX Progr
Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 14:24:28 -0400,
Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:56:30 -0400,
> > Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> >
> >> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>> Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Martin Read wrote:
> > On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
> >> It doe
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Sb, 01 nov 14, 16:44:03, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Do you mean the dbus daemon? No, the systemd developers have other
plans.
https://lwn.net/Articles/580194/
Over Linus' dead body?
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTgyNTQ
Mmm, can't
On 11/01/2014 at 05:24 PM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis:
>
>> A quick search reveals the following.
>>
>> I've a software that use libuuid. Until now, the uuidd had the
>> ability to start on-demand the uuidd if the later, quotting "...
>> setuid to an unprivile
On Sb, 01 nov 14, 16:44:03, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >Do you mean the dbus daemon? No, the systemd developers have other
> >plans.
> >https://lwn.net/Articles/580194/
>
> Over Linus' dead body?
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTgyNTQ
Mmm, can't find any
Am 01.11.2014 22:17, schrieb Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:
> Christian Seiler:
>> Finally: Upstart also supports socket activation. It's not quite as
> > powerful as systemd's, but is has enough features for this use case.
> > I don't know the people developing util-linux, but I could imagine
> >
Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis:
A quick search reveals the following.
>
> I've a software that use libuuid. Until now, the uuidd had the
> ability to start on-demand the uuidd if the later, quotting "...
> setuid to an unprivileged user (e.g. uuidd:uuidd)".
>
> After that commit, i'm forced to use sy
Christian Seiler:
Finally: Upstart also supports socket activation. It's not quite as
> powerful as systemd's, but is has enough features for this use case.
> I don't know the people developing util-linux, but I could imagine
> them accepting a patch to also support Upstart-style socket
> activ
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Sb, 01 nov 14, 14:24:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:56:30 -0400,
Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Yeah... the Unix way... which systemd and it's pieces violate in so
many ways.
Surprisingly 10th of different executables talking to
On Sb, 01 nov 14, 14:24:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> >Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:56:30 -0400,
> >Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> >>>
> >>Yeah... the Unix way... which systemd and it's pieces violate in so
> >>many ways.
> >Surprisingly 10th of different executables talking to eac
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:56:30 -0400,
Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Martin Read wrote:
On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
It doesn't need these code paths. The library doesn't do
anything unless you do have the software actually ru
On 01/11/14 17:58, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Surprisingly 10th of different executables talking to each other using
a common IPC mechanism (dbus here) seems to be really "unixy" to me...
And what are these 10s of different executables talking about behind my
back? ;-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:56:30 -0400,
Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> Martin Read wrote:
> >>> On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
> It doesn't need these code paths. The library doesn't do
> anything unless you do have the software actually runn
On 11/01/2014 07:56 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Martin Read wrote:
On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
It doesn't need these code paths. The library doesn't do anything
unless you do have the software actually running which the library makes
useable --- at
lee wrote:
> Then the software shouldn't depend on a library it doesn't need.
You use programs every day that contain code paths to support features
that you never use. Sometimes those paths are entirely inside the
program itself. Sometimes some of them are in libraries. Sometimes
some of those
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Martin Read wrote:
On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
It doesn't need these code paths. The library doesn't do anything
unless you do have the software actually running which the library makes
useable --- at least that's what was said.
Of course, not al
Miles Fidelman wrote:
>Martin Read wrote:
>> On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
>>> It doesn't need these code paths. The library doesn't do anything
>>> unless you do have the software actually running which the library makes
>>> useable --- at least that's what was said.
>>>
>>> Of course, not all ca
On 10/31/2014 at 09:53 PM, lee wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2014, lee wrote:
>>> Then the software shouldn't depend on a library it doesn't need.
>>
>> It needs the code paths of the library in some cases, therefore it
>> links with the library, therefore the library must
Martin Read wrote:
On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
It doesn't need these code paths. The library doesn't do anything
unless you do have the software actually running which the library makes
useable --- at least that's what was said.
Of course, not all cases are the same, yet in this case, the li
On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
It doesn't need these code paths. The library doesn't do anything
unless you do have the software actually running which the library makes
useable --- at least that's what was said.
Of course, not all cases are the same, yet in this case, the library
shouldn't be i
On Sb, 01 nov 14, 11:25:31, Joel Rees wrote:
>
> I take it there's a developer somewhere that has taken an active
> dislike to debian menus and is deliberately trying to make everyone
> hate them. (Especially considering the TC bug you mention above.)
...
> Be careful when you see conspiracy.
> L
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Carl Johnson wrote:
> Joel Rees writes:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Christian Seiler
>> wrote:
>>> I suspect XFCE4, like most DEs available, only parses XDG .desktop
>>> files, and doesn't parse Debian's menu system.
>>
>> Yeah. That seems to be the c
Joel Rees writes:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> I suspect XFCE4, like most DEs available, only parses XDG .desktop
>> files, and doesn't parse Debian's menu system.
>
> Yeah. That seems to be the case.
I asked about a similar issue and somebody told me how to cr
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
